Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 19

Thread: Affordable Health Care for ALL? Yes.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mountains
    Posts
    9,867
    Thanks
    2,720
    Thanked 1,407 Times in 1,184 Posts

    Default Affordable Health Care for ALL? Yes.

    That would be a plan to enroll uninsured Americans automatically in no-premium, high-deductible health policies, with freedom to opt out and which would provide, for the now totally uninsured, financial protection at least from expensive costs.

    The ObamaCare mandate to buy insurance does not work. Many people are still going completely without insurance because they can't afford the law's expensive plans, preferring instead to pay the penalty for not having coverage.

    Congress could replace the ObamaCare income-tested premium credits for buying insurance in the individual market
    with age-adjusted tax credits.

    Lawmakers could require insurers to offer products whose premiums match the value of the federal tax credits.
    For example, if the basic age-adjusted tax credit for a 40-yr-old man is $3,000, then every insurer in his state would have to make a policy available for them with a $3,000 premium.

    The upfront deductibles in these plans would be adjusted as necessary to ensure that the premium equals the tax credit.
    This would give most consumers in the individual market--those without access to employer insurance, Medicare or Medicaid--the option to get a private insurance plan at no cost to themselves.

    The deductibles would be higher, and the options costlier, but at least they would have financial protection against expensive medical claims, which is the primary purpose of insurance (and not expense-free health care), which they currently choose not to have because of the cost.

    --Proposed by
    James C. Capretta (American Enterprise Institute) and
    Lanhee J. Chen (Hoover Institution, also director of domestic policy studies in the Public Policy Program at Stanford University)

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    lived in 5 states traveled extensively in Europe middle East and Asia.
    Posts
    15,183
    Thanks
    2,009
    Thanked 2,057 Times in 1,672 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The core of the high cost health insurance is the existence of individual policies. Whenever a health insurance company is given the opportunity to insure single individuals there is no incentive at all to keep the prices down, historically the fact is they raise prices fast and even cancel policies whenever they are can.

    Rather there needs to be some method to include everyone is some large group policy. Where the company will not raise an individual's costs without raising everyone's costs and there is a huge disincentive to do that. Yes in fact those group policies do end up going up, but at a greatly reduced rate when compared to individual policies.

    The ACA has attempted to create some "safe" individual policies for those either without insurance because they cannot afford it or those who refuse to get insurance. That is not a fix for the situation. So instead of fixing the insurance market place the ACA merely contorts and distorts it into something that will not work.

    Obviously the single payer system would give us the greatest possible group policy, there are some obstinate people out there who insist on having some custom made policy but that choice is something with a big price tag and if they can afford such a thing let them get it but then they cannot legitimately complain about its costs either.
    "Any jackass can kick down a barn," former U.S. Houston Speaker Sam Rayburn once said with his famous Texas bluntness, "but it takes a good carpenter to build one."

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mountains
    Posts
    9,867
    Thanks
    2,720
    Thanked 1,407 Times in 1,184 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    The core of the high cost health insurance is the existence of individual policies. Whenever a health insurance company is given the opportunity to insure single individuals there is no incentive at all to keep the prices down, historically the fact is they raise prices fast and even cancel policies whenever they are can.

    Rather there needs to be some method to include everyone is some large group policy. Where the company will not raise an individual's costs without raising everyone's costs and there is a huge disincentive to do that. Yes in fact those group policies do end up going up, but at a greatly reduced rate when compared to individual policies.

    The ACA has attempted to create some "safe" individual policies for those either without insurance because they cannot afford it or those who refuse to get insurance. That is not a fix for the situation. So instead of fixing the insurance market place the ACA merely contorts and distorts it into something that will not work.

    Obviously the single payer system would give us the greatest possible group policy, there are some obstinate people out there who insist on having some custom made policy but that choice is something with a big price tag and if they can afford such a thing let them get it but then they cannot legitimately complain about its costs either.
    Then make all those who would use tax credits to pay their insurance premiums into one group. . .that's millions and millions of people.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    lived in 5 states traveled extensively in Europe middle East and Asia.
    Posts
    15,183
    Thanks
    2,009
    Thanked 2,057 Times in 1,672 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    The bigger group the better.
    "Any jackass can kick down a barn," former U.S. Houston Speaker Sam Rayburn once said with his famous Texas bluntness, "but it takes a good carpenter to build one."

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    6,540
    Thanks
    895
    Thanked 1,109 Times in 950 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smoky View Post
    Lawmakers could require insurers to offer products whose premiums match the value of the federal tax credits.
    For example, if the basic age-adjusted tax credit for a 40-yr-old man is $3,000, then every insurer in his state would have to make a policy available for them with a $3,000 premium.
    Price controls don't work....who pays the difference? The taxpayer? If so, then you've just shifted the cost from the individual to the collective.....bad idea.

    Better idea? Get the Feds out of the business....let people buy catastrophic plans (or other plans)...cost of which is 100% tax deductible.

    But then...insufficient opportunities for graft if the Feds were to do that.
    “You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong...You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.” - Ronald Reagan
    "This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." Ronald Reagan (1964)

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Pondering For This Useful Post:

    smoky (04-20-2017)

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    WI USA
    Posts
    6,101
    Thanks
    1,901
    Thanked 873 Times in 722 Posts
    Blog Entries
    12

    Default

    I'm so pleased to see such consensus of opinion here.
    In 2016, the Democrats acknowledged that Obamacare had problems and needed to be fixed.
    Whether it gets fixed, or whether it gets repealed and replaced with something that would have been the same as Obamacare after it got fixed, I don't care (except the latter would probably stick taxpayers with more administrative costs).
    But what I want to see is our elected representatives actually doing something sensible to get more people insured, not to take insurance away from people.
    Establishing the law by receiving the righteousness which is by faith, without the deeds of the law!

    2 Cor 3 "11For if that which is done away was glorious, much more that which remaineth is glorious."

    Certified Chalcedon Compliant
    Officially approved in 451

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mountains
    Posts
    9,867
    Thanks
    2,720
    Thanked 1,407 Times in 1,184 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    The bigger group the better.
    Actually, it would not be just one group. . .it would be organized into several large groups according to various state insurance laws, risk, etc.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    lived in 5 states traveled extensively in Europe middle East and Asia.
    Posts
    15,183
    Thanks
    2,009
    Thanked 2,057 Times in 1,672 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Having state sized health insurance groups would not be a bad idea. What current health insurance companies could administer them for on contract for a set fee. There would be statewide elected officials held responsible for the overall program in each state. Medicaid could be melded into that program.

    There are currently HMO's who pay their doctors on salary instead of per function. No incentive to order useless tests, they get paid the same regardless of the number of tests, which is a change that might make sense.

    But we also need to negotiate with big Pharma over their drug pricing. They wont like it, but it needs to happen. They make claims about the cost of their research, but how much of it is actually paid for through the N.I.H or CDC? State universities in many states also spend big bucks doing much of the testing. Its not entirely from the pockets of the big Pharma.
    "Any jackass can kick down a barn," former U.S. Houston Speaker Sam Rayburn once said with his famous Texas bluntness, "but it takes a good carpenter to build one."

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Blue Ridge Mountains
    Posts
    9,867
    Thanks
    2,720
    Thanked 1,407 Times in 1,184 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Celeste View Post
    Having state sized health insurance groups would not be a bad idea. What current health insurance companies could administer them for on contract for a set fee. There would be statewide elected officials held responsible for the overall program in each state. Medicaid could be melded into that program.

    There are currently HMO's who pay their doctors on salary instead of per function. No incentive to order useless tests, they get paid the same regardless of the number of tests, which is a change that might make sense.

    But we also need to negotiate with big Pharma over their drug pricing. They wont like it, but it needs to happen. They make claims about the cost of their research, but how much of it is actually paid for through the N.I.H or CDC? State universities in many states also spend big bucks doing much of the testing. Its not entirely from the pockets of the big Pharma.
    And the prices over seas are multiple times cheaper.

  11. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    lived in 5 states traveled extensively in Europe middle East and Asia.
    Posts
    15,183
    Thanks
    2,009
    Thanked 2,057 Times in 1,672 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Generally the cost of living is lower too.

    Frankly unless we can eliminate the cost of medical school, doctors will continue to demand high salaries. Do we really want doctors who pass with a "c" grade? We choose who will become doctors by keeping medical school seats fewer than the people who apply. Only the best students get those seats. How about a contract for the first 10 years of their career (after they graduate) they must work in some salary position rather than have their own private offices. Afterward they can go out on their own.

    Their job function is critically important, life and death literally. There really is no free market in doctors skill sets either. Most specialists have their offices in big cities. If we can keep their expenses smaller by paying for all medical school costs for the students, and let them do their business in HMO's where they work on salary we can keep their fees lower. (Remember a TV series called "Northern Exposure?") Look it up, it was very funny.
    "Any jackass can kick down a barn," former U.S. Houston Speaker Sam Rayburn once said with his famous Texas bluntness, "but it takes a good carpenter to build one."

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •